Journal for the Education of Gifted

Young Scientists, 8(3), 1231-1243, Sept 2020

e-ISSN: 2149- 360X youngwisepub.com
jegys.org © 2020

Research Article

Level of combinatorial thinking in solving mathematical problems

Yulia Maftuhah Hidayati1*, Abdul Ngalim2, Sutama3, Zainal Arifin4, Zaenal Abidin5, Eka Rahmawati6
Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, University Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia

Article Info Abstract

Received: 16 May 2020 Combinatorial thinking is an important reasoning process in building one's knowledge
Revised: 02 July 2020 and experience. The purpose of this study is to describe the characteristics of the level
Accepted: 27 August 2020 of combinatorial thinking in solving mathematical problems. The subjects of the study
Available online: 15 Sept 2020 were 40 students of Elementary Teacher Education Department (PGSD): 20 students
Keywords: of the second semester and the others of the sixth semester. The reason for choosing
Combinatorial thinking level subjects from these two levels is to meet all levels of combinatorial thinking. All
Mathematics education research subjects were given test questions about combinatorial problems. From 40
Mathematical problems subjects, five students were selected to be interviewed as they had fulfilled all five levels
Students of elementary teacher of combinatorial thinking. The data validity was conducted by triangulation through
2149-360X/ © 2020 The Authors. recording interview results and comparing it with data from students' written test
Published by Young Wise Pub. Ltd. results to ensure the validity and reliability of this research. The results show that there
This is an open access article under are five levels of combinatorial thinking in solving mathematical problems:
the CC BY-NC-ND license investigating “some cases’, systematically checking cases, using the calculation order,
systematically generating all cases, and changing the problem into another
combinatorial problem. Level one is the identification of the possibility of students’
understanding the questions incorrectly, or vice versa, already can answer the questions
with systematic procedures, but the results are less precise. Level two is conducting
systematic checking about students' understanding of the combination material.
Besides, it also concerns about the ability to answer problems systematically using
diagram trees. Level three is students are able to apply the calculation orders, which are
addition and multiplication. Level four is systematically generating all cases about the
ability to calculate possibilities without schematic, drawings, or diagrams. Level five is
changing the problem into another combinatorial problem, it is the ability to calculate
possibilities with complex problems Based on the research findings, it turns out there
is another level of combinatorial thinking, which is using the calculation order and this
is found between level two and level three. The researchers recommend further
research to explore more on the application of calculation order.

To cite this article:

Hidayati, Y. M., Ngalim, A., Sutama, Arifin, Z., Abidin, Z., Rahmawati, E. (2020). Level of Combinatorial
Thinking in Solving Mathematical Problems. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(3), 1231-
1243. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/jegys.751038

Introduction
Thinking and reasoning are needed for the present and the future (NRC, 1989). The statement is in line with (National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000), that there are five standards in the process of learning mathematics:
representations, reasoning, and proof, communication, connections, and problem-solving. As quoted by Setianingsih,
et al. 2017, NCTM state that learning mathematics is perceived as a social effort in which mathematics class functions

1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, University Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia, (ymh284@ums.ac.id) Orcid no.: 0000-0003-
0540-4672 Scopus ID: 57203591147
2 Professor, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, University Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia (an578@ums.ac.id), Orcid no.: 0000-0003-0187-9785
Scopus ID: 57210947057
3 3Professor, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, University Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia (sutama@ums.ac.id), Orcid no.: 0000-0002-9006-8388
Scopus ID: 57208798189
4 Associate Professor, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, University Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia (za135@ums.ac.id), Orcid no.: 0000-0002-
0945-0943 Scopus ID: 57211013204
5 Associate Professor, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, University Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia (za825@ums.ac.id), Orcid no.: 0000-0003-
1102-430X Scopus ID: -
6 Student, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, University Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia (za825@ums.ac.id), Orcid no.: 0000-0003-0484-2937
Scopus ID: -
Hidayati et al. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 8(3) (2020) 1231-1243

as communities where thinking, speaking, agreeing, and disagreeing are encouraged. Teachers provide students with
strong mathematical problems to solve together and students are expected to justify and explain their solutions.
Hufferd-Ackles, Fuson & Sherin (2004) stated that the research aims at expanding an individual's thinking and others’.
Therefore, teachers and students are expected to master the five standard processes in learning activities, reasoning
for instance. Procedural understanding focuses on experimenting facts and algorithms and conceptual understanding
reflects students' ability to reason and understand mathematical concepts, operations, and relationships that will assist
them in solving non-routine problems (Al-Mutawah et al. 2019).
Accordingly, for academic development, teachers must apply methods or strategies that are appropriate to elevate
the level of students’ potential development to their actual level (Kamau, 2016; Setianingsih et al. 2017). Learning
mathematics is not only counting, but also requires skills in the reasoning logical thinking. Lay (2009) state that in the
theory of mental development of Piaget through Test of Logical Thinking (TOLT), logical thinking includes: (1)
controlling variables, (2) proportional reasoning, (3) probabilistic reasoning, (4) correlational reasoning, and (5)
combinatorial thinking. NCTM states that combinatorial thinking is an essential element compared to other types of
logical thinking and its existence is inseparable from Mathematics (English, 1991; Yuen, 2008)
Combinatorial thinking is one of the important reasoning processes in building one's knowledge and experience.
The importance of combinatorial thinking will be more visible when students follow the learning process and work
on problems. This is a basic skill that must be developed to build potential and critical thinking skills (Silwana, et al.
2021; Pamungkas & Khaerunnisa, 2020; Yuberti, et al. 2019) It will be more obvious when students participate in the
learning process and complete several questions. As stated by Jazim et al. (2017), the principle of learning mathematics
in schools is students must learn mathematics by understanding, actively building new knowledge from experience
and knowledge. Effective mathematics learning requires students' understanding of what they know and what they
need to learn, and then challenges and supports them to learn beyond. Cadenas, as quoted by Cuevas et al. (2018),
mentions that to build new knowledge it is necessary for students to re-organize and expand their prior knowledge
and teachers need to detect deficiencies, difficulties, and mistakes that prevent knowledge increasing significantly.
Research by Tsai & Chang (2008) reveals that combinatorial thinking triggers creativity, curiosity, and confidence
of students in working on problems. Furthermore, combinatorial thinking is important because it is a basic thinking
ability that must be continuously developed towards critical thinking abilities and skills. Still, many students encounter
difficulty in combinatorial thinking (Batanero et al. 1997; English, 2005; Lockwood, 2012; Eizenberg & Zaslavsky,
2004)
Strategies to overcome combinatorial thinking difficulties have been applied by several researchers (Balera &
Júnior, 2017; Hayashi & Ohsawa, 2013; Melusova & Vidermanova, 2015; Pizlo & Li, 2005). Hayashi & Ohsawa (2013)
unravels that the game market innovator facilitates students to think combinatorially, which is to foster student
creativity and innovation. The research by Pizlo & Li (2005) used puzzle 15 strategy to overcome combinatorial
thinking difficulties. The weakness of the strategy is it requires a long time in solving problems. Melusova &
Vidermanova (2015) examined the strategies used by students in working on combinatorial problems and associated
it with students' answers. Additionally, some researchers used the latest software, T-Tupple Reallocation (TTR). TTR
is a software program for computational problems and mathematical cases. The results indicate that there are better
results in solving combinatorial cases, which means the use of TTR software has a better impact (Balera & Júnior,
2017).
Research by Lockwood (2013) found a combinatorial thinking model for students to analyze students' conceptual
based on mathematical activities in solving counting problems (enumeration). The purpose of this model is to explain
the relevant aspects of the students' counting process as well as to describe and explain aspects of the counting
activities, with the final objective to describe the combinatorial way of thinking of students.

1232
Hidayati et al. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 8(3) (2020) 1231-1243

Counting Formulas/
Processes Expression
s

Connection between steps was clear

Sets of
Outcomes Connection between steps was not clear

Figure 1.
Combinatorrial Thinking Model (Lockwood, 2013)
Rezaie & Gooya (2011) formulated four levels of combinatorial thinking: investigating “some cases”, how am I
sure that I have counted all the cases?, systematically generating all cases, and changing the problem into another
combintorial problem. However, based on the results of preliminary studies conducted by researchers, there seems to
be another level besides those four levels. Researchers found some students used addition and multiplication or
calculation order in solving problems. The level is indicated to be between level two and level three. Therefore, it is
necessary for further study about adding level of combinatorial thinking in solving mathematical problems. This is
conducted to accommodate the stages of combinatorial thinking.
Problem of Study
What is the reconstruction of combinatorial thinking levels for mathematical problem solving? what are the
descriptions of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th levels of combinatorial thinking?

Method
Research Design
This research is qualitative approach. The data of this study were obtained through interviews and tests (Cresswell,
2012). Researchers arranged meeting six times with students. The first meeting was a preliminary interview about
combinatorial thinking and combinatorial material. As a result, students had obtained combinatorial material but had
no knowledge about combinatorial thinking. The second to the sixth meeting were tests and interviews.
Participants
The subjects chosen in this study were 40 students of Elementary Teacher Education Department. The reason for
choosing the subject is to obtain as much information as possible from various sources to formulate the level of
combinatorial thinking, as well as expressing the characteristics of students' combinatorial thinking in solving
mathematical problems. From 40 students five students were eligible for further interviews.
Table 1.
Demographic Structures of Participants
Selection by f %
Gender Male 2 40
Female 3 60
Grade 2nd semester 2 40
6th semester 3 60
As stated in Table 1, the amount of the sample was 5 students of the 2 nd and 6th semesters (two males and three
females) with levels of different combinatorial thinking.
Procedure
Session 1, the researchers interviewed the subjects about combinatorial thinking and combinatorial materials. Based on
the results of the interview, the subjects understood the combinatorial materials, but they did not understand what
the combinatorial thinking really means. Session 2, the observation of the charasterictics of combinatorial thinking
levels is realized by asking students to solve some mathematical problems. Session 3, the researchers interviewed the
1233
Hidayati et al. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 8(3) (2020) 1231-1243

subjects. The type of interviews was a semi-structural so it does not need to make interview guidance. The interview
was adjusted to the subjects’ conditions.
Data Collection Tools
A test instrument related to the mathematical problem. The study reconstruct the indicators of combinatorial thinking
(Rezaie & Gooya, 2011). The test instrument used in this study can be seen in Table 2
Table 2.
The Test Instrument of Mathematical Problem
Level Questions
Investigating “some cases’ A restaurant serves two kinds of foods (chicken satay and fried rice) and
two kinds of beverages (tea and orange). If there are two people and they
order 1 kind of food and beverage, how many pairs of foods and
beverages can be ordered?
How am I sure that I have counted all A restaurant serves 2 kinds of foods (chicken satay and fried rice) and 2
the cases? kinds of beverages (tea and orange). If there are 2 people and they order
one kind of food and beverage, how many pairs of foods and beverages
can be ordered?
Using calculation order A restaurant serves 6 kinds of foods (chicken satay, fried rice, baked
chicken, Javanese traditional cooked rice, spicy fried eggs, and fried
chicken) and 4 kinds of beverages (tea and orange). If there are 4 people
and they order one kind of food and beverage, how many pairs of foods
and beverages can be ordered?
Systematically generating all cases A restaurant serves 14 kinds of foods (chicken satay, fried rice, baked
chicken, Javanese traditional cooked rice, spicy fried eggs, fried chicken,
fried eggs, chicken soup, meat soup, chicken curry, chicken soup, sweet
meal soup, soup with meatballs, and goat satay) and 12 kinds of beverages
(tea, orange, syrup, milk, coffee, ginger, lemon tea, water melon juice,
orange juice, strawberry juice, sour soup juice, and guava juice). If there are
4 people and they order one kind of food and beverage, how many pairs
of foods and beverages can be ordered?
Changing problems into another A computer’s password comprises 8 characters in length. Each character
combinatorial problem can be alphabets or numeral, capital or small letters. How many
passwords can be made?
The answers of 40 students were classified into five levels of combinatorial thinking according to
students'understanding in solving mathematical. The distribution of the number of students' answers will be presented
in Table 3.
Table 3.
Number of Students at Different Level of Combinatorial Thinking
Level of Combinatorial Thinking Number of Students
Identifying possibilities 10 Students
Systematically checking all cases 12 Students
Using calculation order 8 Students
Systematically generalizing solutions 6 Students
Changing problem into another combinatorial problem 4 Students

The researchers interviewed the subjects. The type of interviews was a semi-structural so it does not need to make
interview guidance.
The data validation used a method triangulation by the interview recordings and comparing its results with the
paper-based test results to ensure the validity and reliability (Golafshani, 2003).

1234
Hidayati et al. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 8(3) (2020) 1231-1243

Data Analysis
The results of interviews and written tests were analyzed. The researcher listened to the first recording, taking into
account the relationship between student results and related literature. During the second recording, the researcher
listened in detail the results of the interview and the student's written test to determine each characteristic of the level
of combinatorial thinking. After the characteristics of each combinatorial thinking were determined, the next step was
to start processing data according to the level of combinatorial thinking. Determination of these characteristics is an
important step in data analysis because it facilitates the interpretation of meaningful data. These characteristics emerge
through a literature review, identifying each interview answer, and students' written tests that represents related
concepts in the literature. Table 4 shows the coding scheme and the description of each characteristic of the level of
combinatorial thinking.
Table 4.
Description Category of Combinatorial Thinking in Solving Mathematical Problems
Category Description Sub-category
Investigating “some cases’ The procedure is systematic Students understand the
Inaccurate in reading and understanding combination but inaccurate
the problems in reading and
There is the possibility of missing answers understanding the problems
The results are more likely imprecise
How am I sure that I have counted all The procedure is systematic whether in Students understand the
the cases? the form of pictures, schematics, and combination, problems are
diagrams precisely analyzed
Through and meticulous in reading and
understanding the problems
Facilitate students to answer all
possibilities
Using calculation order The procedure is systematic Students can solve
Using calculation order of addition and problems with the
multiplication systematic procedure by
using calculation order
Systematically generating all cases The procedure is systematic with more Students can solve more
complex cases that are not usually solved complex problems than
using pictures, schematics, and diagrams before without using
pictures, schematics, and
diagrams
Changing problems into another The procedure is systematic with more Students can solve
combinatorial problem complex cases problems and change them
into different forms and
answer it correctly

Results and Discussion

1st Level : Investigating “Some Cases’
The following are the results of the study that the researchers will describe from the explanation of each answer that
shows the level of combinatorial thinking of students in solving mathematical problems. The students at level one are
investigating “some cases’. The students’ answers can be seen in the following figure.

1235
Hidayati et al. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 8(3) (2020) 1231-1243

Figure 2.
P1-F1-18 Answer
Based on the answer, student had solved the problem systematically. The student answered by pairing one by one
type of food and types of drinks that can be ordered. The result is incorrect because the student did not fully
understand the question. This is shown in the following interview excerpt.
R: "Why is did you answer this way?" (Pointing the schema of P1-F1-18 answer sheet)
P1-F1-18: "There are two foods and two drinks, so I wrote down the chicken satay as food and beverages that can be ordered with
chicken satay are tea and orange juice. Food and beverage pairings will be chicken satay and tea and chicken satay and orange
juice. And so on, ma'am (pointing to the results of the answer), and then there are two people coming in, the first person can order
four pairs of food and beverage and so can the second person, so the answer is 8 pairs."
Based on the results of the interview, P1-F1-18 is included in the first level of combinatorial thinking and the
student could solve the problems by using the scheme. From two pairs of foods, the student paired each food with
two beverages. However, the student did not fully understand the problem so that the result was incorrect.
2nd level : How am I Sure that I have Counted All the Cases?
The second level is how am I sure that I have counted all the cases? At this level, students are able to solve problems
by using pictures, schemes, and diagrams. Students can answer all possibilities precisely. Students create a diagram tree
and pair each food with its beverage (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.
P2-M1-18 Answer
Based on the answer above, the student was able to answer with all the possibilities by pairing one by one the types
of food and types of beverages that can be ordered. The student then orderly wrote down food and beverage pairs
with 4 possibilities. It is presented in the following interview results.
1236
Hidayati et al. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 8(3) (2020) 1231-1243

R: "Why did you answer this way?" (pointing the schema of P2-M1-18 answer sheet)
P2-M1-18: "There are two foods and two beverages. Then it questions how many possible pairs of food and beverages can be
ordered. So, I wrote down the chicken satay as food and the beverage that can be ordered with chicken satay are tea and orang e
juice. The food and beverage pairs are chicken satay and tea, chicken satay, and orange juice. And so on, ma'am (pointing to the
results of the answers), so there are 4 possibilities.
R: "Oh, there are 4 possibilities? Then, there are 2 people coming in, what is the solution? "
P2-M1-18: "The result is still 4 possibilities, ma'am. Because even 2 people coming in, there are only 4 food and beverage choices
that can be ordered."
Based on the results of the interview, P2-M1-18 is classified as the second level of combinatorial thinking, student
solved problems using tree diagrams systematically and found the correct final answer. The student gave accurate
reasons in solving the given problem.
3rd Level : Using Calculation Order
The third level is using calculation order. In this level, students are able to use more systematic procedures and use
the principle of multiplication or addition. Students are able to solve problems using these rules. Students have
understood the concept of combination. This is shown in the following answer sheet.

Figure 4.
P3-F2-18 Answer
Based on the answers student P3-F2-18, the student could use a calculation order - multiplication. The student
used multiplication when the word "and" is written. Student already understood that the multiplication rule is used if
there is "and" conjunction. The addition rule is used if there is "or" conjunction. This can be seen in the following
interview excerpt.
R: "Why did you answer this way?" (pointing P3-F2-18 answer sheet)
P3-F2-18: "This is ‘and’ Ma'am, so I used multiplication (pointing the answer) and I used addition for ‘or’ "
R: "Where did you get this concept from?"
P3-F2-18: "From high school ma'am, this is the topic of calculation order"
R: "So for all the questions with 'and' and 'or' can be multiplied and summed?"
P3-F2-18: "For combination, yes, you can, ma'am"
R: "Why is the answer 24?"
P3-F2-18: "The problem stated 6 types of food and 4 types of beverages, while the question is the number of food and beverage
pairs that can be ordered, so it can be multiplied as 6x4, so the result is 24"
R: "The question wrote 4 people are coming, what is the solution?
P3-F2-18: "The answer is still 6 x 4, ma'am. Because the question is how many food and beverage pairs can be ordered, so no
matter how many people coming, there are only 24 food and beverages can be ordered."
Based on the interview results, P3-F2-18 is categorized into the third level of combinatorial thinking, student
solved problems using the calculation order. The student used multiplication. When researchers asked why students
chose to use multiplication, the student could explain the reasons precisely.

1237
Hidayati et al. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 8(3) (2020) 1231-1243

4th Level : Systematically Generating All Cases

Level four is systematically generalizing the solution. At this level, students are able to use procedures systematically
with more complex cases than previous which cannot use pictures, schematics, and diagrams or it takes a long time if
it uses those methods. This can be seen from the following answer sheet.

Figure 5.
P4-M2-20 Answer
Based on the answers above, it can be seen that the student understood the question given. The Student solved
the problem without using pictures, schematics, or diagrams. The student only gave one sample pair of food and 12
beverages. The student could explain the answer correctly as shown in the following interview excerpt.
R: "Please read the question first!"
P4-M2-20: "(Student read the questions pointed by researchers)
R: "What do you find from this problem?" (Pointing the question)
P4-M2-20: "There are 14 types of food and 12 types of beverages, ma'am"
R: "Then what is the question?"
P4-M2-20: "How many food and drink pairs can be ordered if 4 people are coming".
R: "Uhm, can you explain the solution?"
P4-M2-20: "You only need to multiply it, ma’am. 14 x 12, the results are 168 pairs, 4 people coming are excluded just because
no matter how many people coming, food and drink pairs that can be ordered are 168, ma’am."
Based on the results of the interview, P4-M2-20 is included in level four of combinatorial thinking, student solved
problems directly without using pictures, schemes or diagrams. The student used a calculation order, which is
multiplication. The student could explain the answer correctly.
5th Level : Changing the Problem into Another Combinatorial Problem
Level five is changing the problem into another combinatorial problem. This level shows that students have a better
understanding in solving combinatorial problems that are different from afore. Students can answer questions
systematically. This can be seen from the following student answers.

Figure 6.
P5-F3-20 Answer
1238
Hidayati et al. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 8(3) (2020) 1231-1243

Based on the student answers, it can be seen that the student was able to count the number of letters and numbers
that can be used as a combination of passwords with a length of six to eight characters. If the problem is changed, the
student already knows how to solve the problem. This is shown from the following interview excerpt.
R: "Please explain the purpose of this problem?"
P5-F3-20: "The purpose of this problem is how many passwords can be made of numbers and letters if they consist of four to eight
characters if lowercase and uppercase letters are considered the same".
R: "Yes, so how?"
P5-F3-20: "Because the password consists of letters and numbers. For the letters, lowercase and uppercase letters are the same,
which are 26, from a to z; then for numbers of total ten are taken from 0 to 9. 26 added by 10 equals to 36. The password can
be six to eight characters long so I made six columns where each column you can input the letters and numbers, which means 36 to
the power of six and this is the result (showing the results of calculations on the answer sheet), for the password consisting of seven
characters then 36 to the power of seven, this is the result (showing the calculation results on the answer sheet) for the eight characters
then 38 to the power of eight."
Based on the interview results, P5-F3-20 is included in level five of combinatorial thinking and the student solved
combinatorial questions that are different from previous. The student could explain the process from the beginning
to the result.

Discussion and Conclusion

The research by Rezaie & Gooya (2011) elaborates four levels of combinatorial thinking, investigating “some cases’,
how am I sure that I have counted all the cases?, systematically generating all cases, and changing the problem into
another combinatorial problem. This article develops four levels of combinatorial thinking into five levels of
combinatorial thinking by adding a level between level two and level three, which is using the calculation order.
Table 5.
Characteristics of Level of Combinatorial Thinking in Solving Mathematical Problems
Level of Combinatorial Thinking General Description
Students do not fully understand the problem
Investigating “some cases’ Students can solve problems with the systematic procedure
but the results tend to be imprecise
Students understand combination materials
How am I sure that I have counted all the cases? Students can solve problems with systematic procedures
using a tree diagram
Students use calculation order, which is addition and
Using calculation order multiplication
Students understand multiplication and addition rules
Students can calculate the possibilities without using
Systematically generating all cases
schematics, pictures or diagrams
Students can solve other combinatorial problems
Changing problems into another combinatorial
Students can calculate possibilities with more complex
problem
problems
Based on Table 5, the results of the study show that there are five levels in combinatorial thinking, including
investigating “some cases’, how am I sure that I have counted all the cases?, using calculation order, systematically
generating all cases, and changing the problem into another combinatorial problem. The student in the first level
identified mathematical problem solving using systematic procedures, but the answers were incorrect because the
student did not fully understand the problems. Therefore, the student encountered difficulty in solving the problems.
Pramusinta et al. (2019); Suyono et al. (2019); Lockwood (2012) state that when students still encounter difficulty in
combining combinatorial questions, the answers obtained tend to be incorrect.
The student on the second level solved problems with procedures systematically with tree diagrams. This is in line
with the results of research by (Rosidin, et al. 2019) that students can learn easily some combinatorial ideas with the
assistance of tree diagrams. Also, tree theory can be employed for probability theory, sorting letters at the post office,
determining family trees, creating genetic trees, and connecting cities roads which have minimum length (Rosidin et
al. 2019). Suyono et al. (2019) states that the use of tree diagrams is a basic procedure in solving combinatorial
problems.
1239
Hidayati et al. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 8(3) (2020) 1231-1243

Student at level three was able to use more systematic procedures and used multiplication rules. In this case, the
student began to use multiplication and knew the concept of multiplication well. This is consistent with the results
(Pramusinta et al. 2019) research that after a formal operational period, teenagers should be able to find systematic
combinatorial construction procedures. Students are included in this stage after passing the formal operational period.
Research by Suyono et al. (2019) reveals that the use of calculation order in combinatorial procedure can also be
referred to as numerical procedures. This finding is supported by Yuli et al. (2019) that the level of students' ability to
solve mathematical problems is used as a consideration in preparing lesson plans.
Student at level four was able to calculate and solve more complex problems without using pictures, schematics,
and diagrams. Student at this level was able to use systematic thinking to solve problems. This is in accordance with
(Suyono et al. 2019) research that solving combinatorial problem will facilitate the process of enumeration, guessing,
generalization, and systematic thinking.
The student at level five could see the concepts of mathematical problem solving. At this level, the student already
saw a lot about the concepts of solving mathematical problems and the student began to solve various problems with
combinatorial thinking skills. The student used five stages by rereading problems, checking calculations, checking
plans, changing problems into other problems, and re-examining problems (Malloy & Jones, 1998; Suyono et al. 2019).
The use of this stage is related to success in solving problems (Eizenberg & Zaslavsky, 2004; Pramusinta et al. 2019).
Based on the results of research and discussion, there are five levels of combinatorial thinking in mathematical
problem solving. Level one is the identification of the possibility of students’ understanding the questions incorrectly,
or vice versa, already can answer the questions with systematic procedures but the results are less precise. Level two
is conducting systematic checking about students' understanding of the combination material. Besides, it also concerns
about the ability to answer problems systematically using diagram trees. Level three is students are able to apply the
calculation orders, which are addition and multiplication. Level four is systematically generating all cases about the
ability to calculate possibilities without schematic, drawings, or diagrams. Level five is changing the problem into
another combinatorial problem, namely the ability to calculate possibilities with complex problems.

Recommendations
For Further Studies
Based on the research findings, it turns out there is another level of combinatorial thinking, which is using the
calculation order and this is found between level two and level three. The researchers recommend further research to
explore more on the application of calculation order. The researchers recommend further research to explore more
on the application of calculation order. The research can explore that is explain about thinking style from
combinatorial thinking. There are1)concrete sequential (CS); 2) concrete random (CR); 3) abstract random (AR); and
4) abstract sequential (AS)., Futrhermore, the researcher can explore in another level of student and different material.
For Applicants
The application of combinatorial thinking levels can be used to overcome learning difficulties. Next, the teacher can
apply the level of combinatorial thinking with other questions.

Limitations of Study
The research just focus in students of Elementary Teacher Education Department (PGSD), and to find level of
combinatorial thinking.

Acknowledgments
Thanks to Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta that have fund my research, and thank for students of Elementary
Teacher Education Department (PGSD) that have been my subject research.

1240
Hidayati et al. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 8(3) (2020) 1231-1243

Biodata of the Authors

Dr. Yulia Maftuhah Hidayati, M. Pd was born in Surakarta, Indonesia. She graduated
bachelor degree in Math Education at Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta 2008, master
degree Math Education at Universitas Negeri Sebelas Maret 2009, doctoral degree Math
Education at Universitas Negeri Malang 2019. Her research interest is math education.Some
research papers have been published in internationally-indexed journals with the Scopus ID:
57203591147 Affiliation: Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia E-mail:
ymh284@ums.ac.id Orcid number: 0000-0003-0540-4672 Phone: (+62)8562833735

Prof. Dr. Abdul Ngalim, M.Hum., M.M graduated bachelor degree in Indonesian
Languange and literature eduaction at Universitas Negeri Sebelas Maret 1977, master degree
Linguistic at Universitas Gajah Mada 2002, doctoral degree Linguistic at Universitas Gajah
Mada 2005. Scopus ID: 5721094705 Affiliation: Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta E-
mail: an578@ums.ac.id Orcid number: 0000-0003-0187-9785 Phone: (+62)8122626116
Scopus ID: - WoS ID: -

Prof. Dr. Sutama, M.Pd graduated bachelor degree in math eduaction at Universitas
Muhammadiyah Surakarta1987, master degree research and evaluation edu at Universitas
Negeri Yogyakarta 2000, doctoral degree management edu at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
2007. Scopus ID: 57208798189. Affiliation: Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta E-mail:
sutama@ums.ac.id Orcid number: 0000-0002-9006-8388 Phone: (+62)8122627274 Scopus
ID: - WoS ID: -

Zainal Arifin, M. Pd is an English lecturer of Indonesian Language and Literary Department,

Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta (UMS), Indonesia. He has got a master degree in
translation linguistics of Universitas Negeri SebelasMarert, Indonesia. He has been taking an
active role in workshops on research methodologies and scientific publications. He has been
interested in educational management, teaching and learning, communication, and translation
researches. Some research papers have been published in internationally-indexed journals with
the Scopus ID: 57211013204 and indexed ones as well as proceedings. He is a peer-review
team of Common Ground Network Research and language editor of Journal of Research and
Advancesin Mathematics Education. Affiliation: Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia E-mail:
za135@ums.ac.id Orcid number: 0000-0002-0945-0943 Phone: (+62)81329571008 WoS ID: -

Zaenal Abidin, M. Pd graduated bachelor degree in Primary education at Universitas

Pendidikan Indonesia 2015 master degree in Primary Education at Universitas Pendidikan
Indonesia 2018. His research interest are math education in primary education and model of
teaching in primary eduaction. Affiliation: Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia E-
mail: za825@ums.ac.id Orcid number: 0000-0003-1102-430X Phone: (+62)85794913130
Scopus ID: - WoS ID: -

Eka Rahmawati is student of primary education department at Universitas Muhammadiyah

Surakarta. She active to be researcher in department. Affiliation: Universitas Muhammadiyah
Surakarta, Indonesia Email : A510170151@student.ums.ac.id Orcid number: 0000-0003-
0484-2937 Phone: (+62)81528413503 Scopus ID: - WoS ID: -

1241
Hidayati et al. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 8(3) (2020) 1231-1243

References
Al-Mutawah, M. A., Thomas, R., Eid, A., Mahmoud, E. Y., & Fateel, M. J. (2019). Conceptual Understanding , Procedural
Knowledge and Problem-Solving Skills in Mathematics : High School Graduates Work Analysis and Standpoints. International
Journal of Education and Practice 7(3), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2019.73.258.273.al
Balera, J. M., & Júnior, V. A. S. (2017). An Algorithm for Combinatorial Interaction Testing: Definitions and Rigorous
Evaluations. Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development 5(1), 2-41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40411-017-0043-z.
Batanero, C., Navarro-Pelayo, V., & Godino, J. D. (1997). Effect of the Implicit Combinatorial Model on Combinatorial
Reasoning in Secondary School Pupils. Educational Studies in Mathematics 32(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1023/A
Cresswell, J. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Qualitative and Quantitative Research (4th ed.). Boston:
Pearson Education Inc.
Cuevas, O., Larios, V., Peralta, J. X., & Jiménez, A. R. (2018). Mathematical Knowledge of Students who Aspire to Enroll in
Engineering Programs. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 13(3), 161–169.
https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3832.
Eizenberg, M., M., & Zaslavsky, O. (2004). Students’ Verification Strategies for Combinatorial Problems. Mathematical Thinking
and Learning, 6(1): 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0601_2.
English, L.D. (1991). Young children’s combinatoric strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(5), 451–474.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00367908
English, L.D. (2005). Combinatorics and the Development of Children’s Combinatorial Reasoning. Exploring Probability in School:
Challenges for Teaching and Learning, 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24530-8_6.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606.
Hayashi, T., & Ohsawa, Y. (2013). Processing Combinatorial Thinking: International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science, 4(3), 14–
38. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijkss.2013070102
Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing Levels and Components of a Math-Talk Learning
Community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034933
Jazim, Anwar, B. A., & Rahmawati, D. (2017). The Use of Mathematical Module Based on Constructivism Approach as Media to
Implant the Concept of Algebra Operation. International Electronic Journal of Matehematics Education 12(3): 579–583.
Kamau, L. M., Kimani, P., & Muthoni, P. (2016). Factors that Influence Teachers' Perceptions of Information Communication
And Technology (ICT) in Mathematics Teaching in Kenyan Secondary Schools. International Journal of Edcation and Practice 4(4),
154–166. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61/2016.4.4/61.4.154.166.
Lay, Y. F. (2009). Logical Thinking Abilities among Form 4 Students in the Interior Division of Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 32, 161–187. Retrieved from
http://www.recsam.edu.my/R&D_Journals/YEAR2009/dec2009vol2/logicalthinking(161-
187).pdf%5Cnhttp://131.211.208.19/login?auth=eng&url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=
N&PAGE=fulltext&D=eric3&AN=EJ910939
Lockwood, E. (2012). Counting Using Sets of Outcomes. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School 18(3), 125-132.
http://10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.18.3.0132.
Lockwood, E. (2013). A model of students’ combinatorial thinking. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(2), 251–265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.02.008.
Malloy, C. E., & Jones, M.G. (1998). An Investigation of African American Students’ Mathematical Problem Solving. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 191–196.
Melusova, J., & Vidermanova, K. (2015). Upper-secondary Students’ Strategies for Solving Combinatorial Problems. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197(February), 1703–1709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.223
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
NRC. (1989). Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
Pamungkas, A. S., & Khaerunnisa, E. (2020). The analysis of student ’ s statistical literacy based on prior knowledge and
mathematical self esteem. Journal for the Mathematics Education and Teaching Practices, 1(1), 43–51. Retrieved from
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jmetp/issue/55820/707759.
Pizlo, Z., & Li, Z. (2005). Solving combinatorial problems: The 15-puzzle. Memory & Cognition, 33(6), 1069–1084.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193214
Pramusinta, Y., Setyosari, P., Widiati, U., & Kuswandi, D. (2019). Exploring Metacognitive and Critical Thinking Skills of Pre-
Service Elementary School Teachers through Discovery Learning Method by Integrating Various Cognitive Styles. Journal for
the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 7(4), 999–1017. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.614028.
Rezaie, M., & Gooya, Z. (2011). What do I mean by combinatorial thinking? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11, 122–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.01.046.
Rosidin, U., Suyatna, A., & Abdurrahman, A. (2019). A Combined HOTS-Based Assessment/STEM Learning Model to Improve
Secondary Students’ Thinking Skills: A Development and Evaluation Study. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists
7(2), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.518464.
Setianingsih, R., Sa’dijah, C., As’ari, A. R., & Muksar, M. (2017). Investigating Fifth- Grade Students ’ Construction of
Mathematical Knowledge through Classroom Discussion. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 12(4), 383–396.
Silwana, A., Subanji, Manyunu, M., & Rashahan, A. A. (2021). Students' Responses Leveling in Solving Mathematical Problem
Based on SOLO Taxonomy Viewed from Multiple Intelligences. Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education (IJOLAE)
3(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v3i1.10528
Suyono, S. M., Roekhan, & Harsiati, T. (2019). Critical Thinking Patterns of First-Year Students in Argumentative Essay. Journal
for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 7(3), 683–697. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/jegys.605324.

1242
Hidayati et al. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 8(3) (2020) 1231-1243

Tsai, Y. L., Chang, C. K. (2008). Using Combinatorial Approach to Improve Students’ Learning of the Distributive Law and
Multiplicative Identities. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 501-531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-
008-9135-x.
Yuberti, Y., Rantika, J., Irwandani,I., &Prasetyo, A. E. (2019). The Effect of Instructional Design Based on Learning cycle 7E
Model with Mind Map Technique to the Students' Critical Thiking Skills. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 6(3), 175-191.
Yuen, G. (2008). Problem Solving Strategies Students Use when Solving Combinatorial Problems. A Thesis Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of. Master of Arts in the Faculty of Graduate Studies the University of British
Columbia.
Yuli, T., Siswono, E., Hartono, S., Kohar, A. W., Karim, K., & Lastiningsih, N. (2019). How do Prospective Teachers Manage Students’
Learning of Mathematics ? 8(2), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM82-49

1243